marg wrote:Ray you can't bulldoze a theory through. You either are able to discuss it or not. Which is it?
You're the one presenting the theory, not me. (reality check)
Sure Ray, I do think the S/R thoery is the best fit theory for the data. Since you don't accept that theory what theory to you think is the best fit theory for all the data?
marg wrote:Even if you accept Book of Mormon witnesses, you still have a theory on how the Book of Mormon was written. So briefly what is the best fit theory according to you for how the Book of Mormon was written?
Not by Joseph placing a MS in a hat, which is your theory.
No Ray that's not my theory. Look if you don't want carry on a discussion, then fine...bye. Go have your beer.
I leave it alone for a day and it all falls to pieces.
I was wondering the same thing. How did a thread essentially about homosexuality get highjacked into a pissing contest about Book of Mormon authorship? Especially since we already have a huge thread about said authorship?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote: I was wondering the same thing. How did a thread essentially about homosexuality get highjacked into a pissing contest about Book of Mormon authorship? Especially since we already have a huge thread about said authorship?
The thing you could do, harm, is scroll back about oh, about 5 pages and see where it began to shift.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb